1. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.1 Operating System Concepts Module 6: Process Synchronization Background The Critical-Section Problem Synchronization Hardware Semaphores Classical Problems of Synchronization Critical Regions Monitors Synchronization in Solaris 2 Atomic Transactions

2. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.2 Operating System Concepts Background Concurrent access to shared data may result in data inconsistency. Maintaining data consistency requires mechanisms to ensure the orderly execution of cooperating processes. Shared-memory solution to bounded-butter problem (Chapter 4) allows at most n – 1 items in buffer at the same time. A solution, where all N buffers are used is not simple. –Suppose that we modify the producer-consumer code by adding a variable counter, initialized to 0 and incremented each time a new item is added to the buffer

3. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.3 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer Shared data type item = … ; var buffer array [0..n-1] of item; in, out: 0..n-1; counter: 0..n; in, out, counter := 0; Producer process repeat … produce an item in nextp … while counter = n do no-op; buffer [in] := nextp; in := in + 1 mod n; counter := counter +1; until false;

4. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.4 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer (Cont.) Consumer process repeat while counter = 0 do no-op; nextc := buffer [out]; out := out + 1 mod n; counter := counter – 1; … consume the item in nextc … until false; The statements: –counter := counter + 1; –counter := counter - 1; must be executed atomically.

5. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.5 Operating System Concepts The Critical-Section Problem n processes all competing to use some shared data Each process has a code segment, called critical section, in which the shared data is accessed. Problem – ensure that when one process is executing in its critical section, no other process is allowed to execute in its critical section. Structure of process P i repeat entry section critical section exit section reminder section until false;

6. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.6 Operating System Concepts Solution to Critical-Section Problem 1.Mutual Exclusion. If process Pi is executing in its critical section, then no other processes can be executing in their critical sections. 2.Progress. If no process is executing in its critical section and there exist some processes that wish to enter their critical section, then the selection of the processes that will enter the critical section next cannot be postponed indefinitely. 3.Bounded Waiting. A bound must exist on the number of times that other processes are allowed to enter their critical sections after a process has made a request to enter its critical section and before that request is granted. Assume that each process executes at a nonzero speed No assumption concerning relative speed of the n processes.

7. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.7 Operating System Concepts Initial Attempts to Solve Problem Only 2 processes, P 0 and P 1 General structure of process P i (other process P j ) repeat entry section critical section exit section reminder section until false; Processes may share some common variables to synchronize their actions.

8. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.8 Operating System Concepts Algorithm 1 Shared variables: –var turn: (0..1); initially turn = 0 –turn - i  P i can enter its critical section Process P i repeat while turn  i do no-op; critical section turn := j; reminder section until false; Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress

9. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.9 Operating System Concepts Algorithm 2 Shared variables –var flag: array [0..1] of boolean; initially flag [0] = flag [1] = false. –flag [i] = true  P i ready to enter its critical section Process P i repeat flag[i] := true; while flag[j] do no-op; critical section flag [i] := false; remainder section until false; Satisfies mutual exclusion, but not progress requirement.

10. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.10 Operating System Concepts Algorithm 3 Combined shared variables of algorithms 1 and 2. Process P i repeat flag [i] := true; turn := j; while (flag [j] and turn = j) do no-op; critical section flag [i] := false; remainder section until false; Meets all three requirements; solves the critical-section problem for two processes.

11. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.11 Operating System Concepts Bakery Algorithm Before entering its critical section, process receives a number. Holder of the smallest number enters the critical section. If processes P i and P j receive the same number, if i < j, then P i is served first; else P j is served first. The numbering scheme always generates numbers in increasing order of enumeration; i.e., 1,2,3,3,3,3,4,5... Critical section for n processes

12. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.12 Operating System Concepts Bakery Algorithm (Cont.) Notation <  lexicographical order (ticket #, process id #) –(a,b) < c,d) if a < c or if a = c and b < d –max (a 0,…, a n-1 ) is a number, k, such that k  a i for i - 0, …, n – 1 Shared data var choosing: array [0..n – 1] of boolean; number: array [0..n – 1] of integer, Data structures are initialized to false and 0 respectively

13. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.13 Operating System Concepts Bakery Algorithm (Cont.) repeat choosing[i] := true; number[i] := max(number[0], number[1], …, number [n – 1])+1; choosing[i] := false; for j := 0 to n – 1 do begin while choosing[j] do no-op; while number[j]  0 and (number[j],j) < (number[i], i) do no-op; end; critical section number[i] := 0; remainder section until false;

14. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.14 Operating System Concepts Synchronization Hardware Test and modify the content of a word atomically. function Test-and-Set (var target: boolean): boolean; begin Test-and-Set := target; target := true; end;

15. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.15 Operating System Concepts Mutual Exclusion with Test-and-Set Shared data: var lock: boolean (initially false) Process P i repeat while Test-and-Set (lock) do no-op; critical section lock := false; remainder section until false;

16. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.16 Operating System Concepts Semaphore Synchronization tool that does not require busy waiting. Semaphore S – integer variable can only be accessed via two indivisible (atomic) operations wait (S): while S  0 do no-op; S := S – 1; signal (S): S := S + 1;

17. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.17 Operating System Concepts Example: Critical Section of n Processes Shared variables –var mutex : semaphore –initially mutex = 1 Process P i repeat wait(mutex); critical section signal(mutex); remainder section until false;

18. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.18 Operating System Concepts Semaphore Implementation Define a semaphore as a record type semaphore = record value: integer L: list of process; end; Assume two simple operations: –block suspends the process that invokes it. –wakeup(P) resumes the execution of a blocked process P.

19. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.19 Operating System Concepts Implementation (Cont.) Semaphore operations now defined as wait(S):S.value := S.value – 1; if S.value < 0 then begin add this process to S.L; block; end; signal(S): S.value := S.value = 1; if S.value  0 then begin remove a process P from S.L; wakeup(P); end;

20. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.20 Operating System Concepts Semaphore as General Synchronization Tool Execute B in P j only after A executed in P i Use semaphore flag initialized to 0 Code: P i P j   Await(flag) signal(flag)B

21. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.21 Operating System Concepts Deadlock and Starvation Deadlock – two or more processes are waiting indefinitely for an event that can be caused by only one of the waiting processes. Let S and Q be two semaphores initialized to 1 P 0 P 1 wait(S);wait(Q); wait(Q);wait(S);  signal(S);signal(Q); signal(Q)signal(S); Starvation – indefinite blocking. A process may never be removed from the semaphore queue in which it is suspended.

22. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.22 Operating System Concepts Two Types of Semaphores Counting semaphore – integer value can range over an unrestricted domain. Binary semaphore – integer value can range only between 0 and 1; can be simpler to implement. Can implement a counting semaphore S as a binary semaphore.

23. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.23 Operating System Concepts Implementing S as a Binary Semaphore Data structures: varS1: binary-semaphore; S2: binary-semaphore; S3: binary-semaphore; C: integer; Initialization: S1 = S3 = 1 S2 = 0 C = initial value of semaphore S

24. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.24 Operating System Concepts Implementing S (Cont.) wait operation wait(S3); wait(S1); C := C – 1; if C < 0 then begin signal(S1); wait(S2); end else signal(S1); signal(S3); signal operation wait(S1); C := C + 1; if C  0 then signal(S2); signal(S)1;

25. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.25 Operating System Concepts Classical Problems of Synchronization Bounded-Buffer Problem Readers and Writers Problem Dining-Philosophers Problem

26. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.26 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer Problem Shared data type item = … var buffer = … full, empty, mutex: semaphore; nextp, nextc: item; full :=0; empty := n; mutex :=1;

27. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.27 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer Problem (Cont.) Producer process repeat … produce an item in nextp … wait(empty); wait(mutex); … signal(mutex); signal(full); until false;

28. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.28 Operating System Concepts Bounded-Buffer Problem (Cont.) Consumer process repeat wait(full) wait(mutex); … remove an item from buffer to nextc … signal(mutex); signal(empty); … consume the item in nextc … until false;

29. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.29 Operating System Concepts Readers-Writers Problem Shared data var mutex, wrt: semaphore (=1); readcount : integer (=0); Writer process wait(wrt); … writing is performed … signal(wrt);

30. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.30 Operating System Concepts Readers-Writers Problem (Cont.) Reader process wait(mutex); readcount := readcount +1; if readcount = 1 then wait(wrt); signal(mutex); … reading is performed … wait(mutex); readcount := readcount – 1; if readcount = 0 then signal(wrt); signal(mutex):

31. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.31 Operating System Concepts Dining-Philosophers Problem Shared data var chopstick: array [0..4] of semaphore; (=1 initially)

32. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.32 Operating System Concepts Dining-Philosophers Problem (Cont.) Philosopher i: repeat wait(chopstick[i]) wait(chopstick[i+1 mod 5]) … eat … signal(chopstick[i]); signal(chopstick[i+1 mod 5]); … think … until false;

33. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.33 Operating System Concepts Critical Regions High-level synchronization construct A shared variable v of type T, is declared as: var v: shared T Variable v accessed only inside statement region v when B do S where B is a Boolean expression. While statement S is being executed, no other process can access variable v.

34. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.34 Operating System Concepts Critical Regions (Cont.) Regions referring to the same shared variable exclude each other in time. When a process tries to execute the region statement, the Boolean expression B is evaluated. If B is true, statement S is executed. If it is false, the process is delayed until B becomes true and no other process is in the region associated with v.

35. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.35 Operating System Concepts Example – Bounded Buffer Shared variables: var buffer: shared record pool: array [0..n–1] of item; count,in,out: integer end; Producer process inserts nextp into the shared buffer region buffer when count < n do begin pool[in] := nextp; in:= in+1 mod n; count := count + 1; end;

36. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.36 Operating System Concepts Bounded Buffer Example (Cont.) Consumer process removes an item from the shared buffer and puts it in nextc region buffer when count > 0 do begin nextc := pool[out]; out := out+1 mod n; count := count – 1; end;

37. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.37 Operating System Concepts Implementation: region x when B do S Associate with the shared variable x, the following variables: var mutex, first-delay, second-delay: semaphore; first-count, second-count: integer, Mutually exclusive access to the critical section is provided by mutex. If a process cannot enter the critical section because the Boolean expression B is false, it initially waits on the first-delay semaphore; moved to the second-delay semaphore before it is allowed to reevaluate B.

38. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.38 Operating System Concepts Implementation (Cont.) Keep track of the number of processes waiting on first-delay and second-delay, with first-count and second-count respectively. The algorithm assumes a FIFO ordering in the queuing of processes for a semaphore. For an arbitrary queuing discipline, a more complicated implementation is required.

39. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.39 Operating System Concepts wait(mutex); while not B do begin first-count := first-count + 1; if second-count > 0 then signal(second-delay) else signal(mutex); wait(first-delay): first-count := first-count – 1; if first-count > 0 then signal(first-delay) else signal(second-delay); wait(second-delay); second-count := second-count – 1; end; S; if first-count >0 then signal(first-delay); else if second-count >0 then signal(second-delay); else signal(mutex);

40. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.40 Operating System Concepts High-level synchronization construct that allows the safe sharing of an abstract data type among concurrent processes. type monitor-name = monitor variable declarations procedure entry P1 :(…); begin … end; procedure entry P2(…); begin … end;  procedure entry Pn (…); begin…end; begin initialization code end Monitors

41. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.41 Operating System Concepts To allow a process to wait within the monitor, a condition variable must be declared, as var x, y: condition Condition variable can only be used with the operations wait and signal. –The operation x.wait; means that the process invoking this opeation is suspended until another process invokes x.signal; –The x.signal operation resumes exactly one suspended process. If no process is suspended, then the signal operation has no effect. Monitors (Cont.)

42. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.42 Operating System Concepts Schematic view of a monitor

43. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.43 Operating System Concepts Monitor with condition variables

44. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.44 Operating System Concepts type dining-philosophers = monitor var state : array [0..4] of :(thinking, hungry, eating); var self : array [0..4] of condition; procedure entry pickup (i: 0..4); begin state[i] := hungry, test (i); if state[i]  eating then self[i], wait, end; procedure entry putdown (i: 0..4); begin state[i] := thinking; test (i+4 mod 5); test (i+1 mod 5); end; Dining Philosophers Example

45. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.45 Operating System Concepts procedure test(k: 0..4); begin if state[k+4 mod 5]  eating and state[k] = hungry and state[k+1 mod 5] ]  eating then begin state[k] := eating; self[k].signal; end; begin for i := 0 to 4 do state[i] := thinking; end. Dining Philosophers (Cont.)

46. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.46 Operating System Concepts Variables var mutex: semaphore (init = 1) next: semaphore (init = 0) next-count: integer (init = 0) Each external procedure F will be replaced by wait(mutex); … body of F; … if next-count > 0 then signal(next) else signal(mutex); Mutual exclusion within a monitor is ensured. Monitor Implementation Using Semaphores

47. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.47 Operating System Concepts For each condition variable x, we have: var x-sem: semaphore (init = 0) x-count: integer (init = 0) The operation x.wait can be implemented as: x-count := x-count + 1; if next-count >0 then signal(next) else signal(mutex); wait(x-sem); x-count := x-count – 1; Monitor Implementation (Cont.)

48. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.48 Operating System Concepts The operation x.signal can be implemented as: if x-count > 0 then begin next-count := next-count + 1; signal(x-sem); wait(next); next-count := next-count – 1; end; Monitor Implementation (Cont.)

49. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.49 Operating System Concepts Conditional-wait construct: x.wait(c); –c – integer expression evaluated when the wait opertion is executed. –value of c (priority number) stored with the name of the process that is suspended. –when x.signal is executed, process with smallest associated priority number is resumed next. Check tow conditions to establish correctness of system: –User processes must always make their calls on the monitor in a correct sequence. –Must ensure that an uncooperative process does not ignore the mutual-exclusion gateway provided by the monitor, and try to access the shared resource directly, without using the access protocols. Monitor Implementation (Cont.)

50. Silberschatz and Galvin  1999 6.50 Operating System Concepts Implements a variety of locks to support multitasking, multithreading (including real-time threads), and multiprocessing. Uses adaptive mutexes for efficiency when protecting data from short code segments. Uses condition variables and readers-writers locks when longer sections of code need access to data. Solaris 2 Operating System